Return to Unique Root for DNS Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Slicer
Date/Time: Fri, June 1, 2001 at 10:27 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Time for some line-by-line. Enjoy.


> ICANN's I Can't Attitude Alienating Internet Community by Jim Wagner

Even the title is bullshit. Which 'internet community' is this again?

> Advocates and adversaries are cranking up the rhetoric as they get ready for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers meetings starting Friday in Stockholm.

Somehow I doubt that it's going to have QUITE the fury of the WTO protests..

> ICANN officials have a raft of topics up for debate in a series of meetings that last until Monday, including the ratification of its 2001-2002 budget, finalizing approval of the .name domain and increasing the application fee for new registrars to $2,500. Also up for discussion is the establishment of new regional Internet registries.

In other words, some bureaucracy, some technical stuff, and mostly just ICANN doing its job. Mundane.

> The agenda is sure to fuel the flames of many ICANN critics

Umm, tell me exactly how a budget, the .name domain (don't tell me you're going to dispute THAT as well), a registrar application fee, and the idea of new RIRs constitute fuel for any flaming?

> who feel the self-styled Internet governing body is overreaching its authority and alienating the worldwide community.

Your imaginary 'community' again. A handful of ORSCers and people on's payroll do not a community make.

> So out come the press releases, designed to whet the appetites for all interested parties. On one side, you have the pro-ICANN contingent (made up largely of U.S. government officials, VeriSign and ICANN officials) and on the other, those against ICANN's recent actions (made up of the rest of the world).

Got Bullshit? Why is it that every anti-whatever group thinks that they have the support of the rest of the world? Unless, of course, your world is limited to people who want to fragment the DNS..

> Earlier this week, Stuart Lynn, ICANN president, posted a document on his site calling for the establishment of a unique, authoritative root server for all domain name server (DNS) activity.

That's a unique ROOT, not a unique SERVER, dumbass. But then again, minor factual errors are nothing when you've got major ones throughout.

> Not surprisingly, ICANN would be that unique root server, a policy that would stand in direct opposition to the many alternate domain root servers already located throughout the world, many of which have been around for years and operating their own domain name extension registries.

Knowing full well that their TLDs weren't going to be seen by the wider world, but thinking that they would somehow be considered official.

> In his call to war, Lynn's document states that alternate roots impede ICANN's mandate by the U.S. Department of Commerce to bring stability and harmony to the Internet names and numbering system. As such, "ICANN's stability-preservation mandate requires that it avoid acting in a manner that encourages their proliferation" and "give no preference to those who choose to work outside of these processes and outside of the policies engendered by this public trust."

*finds the Lynn quotes an oasis of sense in the desert of this post*

> Nowhere is this policy more visible than ICANNs decision this year to include seven global top-level domains (gTLDs) to the existing crop that includes .com, .net, and .org. One of the approved domains, .biz, has been in use by alternate root server Atlantic Root Network, Inc., for years.

And that matters... why?

> It's a decision that seemingly runs counter to ICANNs supposed goal of bringing stability to the Internet, critics say, because no action could bring more instability than allowing another company to sell already-existing domain names.

*types in*

Cannot find server

Hmm. Doesn't exist.

> Naseem Javed, president of ABC Namebank and author of "Domain Wars" said the decision by ICANN to run with its own version of .biz is proof-positive of ICANN's missed opportunity to foster inclusion in the Internet community.

Translation: They won't play with us! WAAAAAHHH!!!

> "This is proof that time and time again ICANN has been very inconsistent in their policies and at times show a logic that is not in accordance to the long-term safety and long-term procedures of this whole system," Javed said.

Translation: It completely fucks our presumptuous name-grabbing asses over, so we have no choice but to spout rhetoric in the hope of convincing enough idiots to shout ICANN down. (Not gonna work, buddy.)

> Javed said ICANN had a chance years ago to sew up the Internet community under one root server, a move he saw as a positive step for the Internet community.

One single SERVER? So if the one server goes down, the whole Net is screwed? Hey, Javed- find your ass. Here's a flashlight. You have two hours.

But if you mean one single root SYSTEM, that's what ICANN _is_ doing, and that's what everyone is complaining about.

> But because of the missed opportunity, its possible ICANN will have to rely on a standard's-based platform working with other root servers.

And they would work with those idiots WHY?

> Two papers written for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Wednesday by Jason Higgs of Higgs Communications lay the groundwork for a proposed virtual inclusive root.

> This "super root" would be considered the "sum of the consensus between all root zones on the public Internet," Higgs said, a patchwork quilt of root servers managed by someone above both the alternate root servers and ICANN's root server.

> Another proposal is that ICANN endorse the other root servers, coordinating domain name selections to avoid name collisions.

Both proposals would instantly grant worldwide legitimacy to servers who only serve a small area. Hey, if this crap about accepting the alternates really happens (yeah right) and I go buy a server and make a program to take all other TLDs, can I have them accepted in the system too?

Alternate 1: Some other TLDs
Alternate 2: Some more TLDs
Slicer: Everything else (that'll be $500 a month, pal)

Hey, I'm starting to like the sound of this!

> It's unlikely to happen, unless the organization is ready to recant its earlier .biz selection, based on the Internet credo of first-come, first-served. That's unlikely since NeuLevel has been a long-time contributor to ICANNs coffers.

Since we haven't thrown enough mud, it's time to accuse them of taking bribes.

> So, until that time it's likely the number of name collisions will increase as NeuLevel, the .biz registry, starts signing up domains. Because its never happened before, its unclear what will happen when an Internet user types in the URL for a .biz domain name that's been "double-dipped," but what's clear is ICANNs apparent disregard for the consequences.

Again, we're going to grant worldwide legitimacy to a tiny alt-root because it serves our purposes, spouting more bullshit about collisions when the reality is that the vast majority of the Internet isn't going to have any problems at all.

> One possible outcome of this domain name double dipping, Lynn said in his document, was the likelihood of "cache poisoning." Because the DNS assumes there is only one root in the world, he said, it could lead to misdirected Web pages and confusion for the server, opening the door to malicious hacker attacks.

Which is why alt-roots, being a greater security risk, should not under any circumstances be allowed into the authoritative root system.

> Thrown into the mix is the recent idealabs! venture at, which introduces its own domain name extensions.


Is THAT who's been behind this shit?!

You want to know what happens to everything THAT company gets involved in? Go check out and search the archives. You're going to see that name a LOT...

> The company has gained popularity in recent weeks for its catchy domain name extensions for sale, including .xxx, .shop, .inc., .family and .tech.

But it's probably going to go out of business anyway, so who gives a damn? Anyone dumb enough to buy a TLD, well.. a fool and his money.

> While an alternate root server like the others around the world, it has gotten traction by signing the top Internet service providers (ISPs) in the U.S. and around the world to its program. Juno Online Services last week joined ISPs EarthLink, Inc., Excite@Home and NetZero (an idealabs! Company) in providing its subscribers access to the alternate Web extensions.

Which is why ICANN should stomp on them as soon as possible before the cancer grows any larger. But like I said, they're probably going to end up on sooner or later anyway..

> proposes ICANN continue in its role as a technical body but no longer issue new TLDs. Instead, let "innovators" develop their own TLDs and, if successful, get included in the ICANN root server as a matter of course.

You wish

> "We believe that the decisions about which TLDs to release and who should administer them would benefit tremendously forces rather than central control by one organization," said David Hernand, chief executive officer. "By using the market to create a climate for innovation in the DNS, all Internet users will benefit."

Translation: We will benefit and it sounds catchy, so go along with it.

>'s proposal is not surprising, considering its aggregate base of 42 million Web users already viewing its root server, a distinct advantage over other alternate roots.

But since already is stepping on the TLD toes of other alt-roots, be prepared to become the target of their fury. ICANN has legitimacy. You don't.

> An interim report released by the NGO (non-governmental organizations) and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) Thursday weighs in with its own conclusions of the ICANN infrastructure.

Translation: We can't just say things, we need to make up official-sounding organizations to say them for us.

> The NAIS has been trying to figure out what ICANN's role in the Internet entails, and how the organization is fulfilling its mandate by the Commerce Department to include bottom-up participation by the world community.

Translation: If it's not what we want, it must not be "participation by the world community".

> When formed, ICANN was expected to be a fairly even mix of policy wonks and techies busily plotting the best course for worldwide Internet domain names, ruled by a board of directors.

> Nine of the 19 directors would be selected from within ICANN from the domain name supporting organization (DNSO), address supporting organization (ASO) and protocol supporting organization (PSO). Nine at-large directors would be determined by worldwide elections, to ensure the will of individual people would be served. The 19th director would be the ICANN president and chief executive officer in a tie-breaker/mediator role.

What is the point of trying to elect ICANN officials anyway? Who's doing the electing? The vast majority of people don't understand the technical issues.

> This mix of at-large and appointed directors is what sold the international community on the ICANN at its foundation, and lent the agency instant legitimacy.

Uh-uh. The U.S. government GAVE ICANN instant legitimacy, which was supported by agreements with other countries.

> But for some reason, that never happened. The nine directors from the DNSO, ASO and PSO were selected, but only five at-large directors were elected, in a process that left many advocates skeptical. What's more, ICANN officials filled in the remaining four at-large directors slots with its own appointees, who have yet to be replaced.

> Because of this, many now consider the group the effective equivalent of a top-down government agency trying to enforce its own rules on the worldwide community.

Your imaginary 'worldwide community' again.

> The NAIS report states that "while governments play a role in ICANN through the government advisory committee, there are many reasons why that role is a limited one" and that "governments are viewed with skepticism as insufficient or a poor fit for Internet management where rapid change, technical expertise and responsiveness to new social developments are needed."

Which is why ICANN was created in the first place.

> Making matters worse, the elected directors of the at-large membership are due for re-election next year, and a report detailing improvements to the current voting process will not be completed by next month's deadline. In November 2001, the final voting mechanism is supposed to be in place.

> Knowing the June deadline is impossible to meet, NAIS officials say meeting the November deadline is "essential."

Again, you ascribe legitimacy to yourselves by hiding under "NAIS".

"Every day that passes without resolving this issue decreases the legitimacy of decisions that ICANN is making," the report concludes.

Well, I conclude that you're a bunch of idiots. And since neither of us has any real authority here, and I'm smarter than you are, my conclusion prevails.

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy